jonovate Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Report: Lab Results Counter Bryant Accuser's Story Wed May 26, 8:18 PM ET DENVER (Reuters) - Crime laboratory evidence shows the 19-year-old woman who has accused Kobe Bryant (news) of rape had consensual sex with another man hours after she said the basketball star raped her, MSNBC reported on Wednesday. The DNA evidence from the prosecution's own laboratory could be introduced in court as early as Thursday when the Los Angeles Laker will be back in an Eagle, Colorado, courtroom for a pre-trial hearing, the cable TV report said. Bryant's lawyer, Pamela Mackey, laid a bombshell in a prior pre-trial hearing when she suggested the woman had sex within 15 hours after she said she was raped. Through her attorney, the young woman denied having sex so soon after she said she was raped on June 30 at a Colorado resort where she worked and Bryant was staying for out-patient surgery on his knee. According to the MSNBC report, fresh sperm and semen samples were found inside the woman's body from samples given during a rape examination and that such evidence would prove she had sex within hours after the incident with Bryant. Krista Flannigan, a spokeswoman for Eagle County prosecutor Mark Hurlbert, said the office could not comment on the report. The 25-year-old Bryant, who has pleaded not guilty to raping the woman, has said the two had consensual sex. If the woman did have consensual sex soon after she said she was raped by Bryant, then she also would have lied to police who were investigating the case. Prosecutors have said that DNA from someone other than Bryant was found on the underwear the woman wore when she went to the hospital and was the result of mistakenly putting on soiled underwear that had DNA from an earlier sexual episode. However, the DNA sample taken from her body could refute that line of thinking. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/n...ime_bryant_dc_2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal2002 Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 What an idiot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellBender Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 :o Bombshell indeed! I'd love to see the looks on everyone's face when Ms. Mackey pulled that out of her hat! PS: Should information about a rape case really be in the "Sporting Arena" forum? :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoyablue Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 (edited) Even though this ruins the credibility of the woman, I don't see how it clears Kobe. Edited May 27, 2004 by nspeds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frease Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 She was raped and still she had the mood for sex later. What a ****h. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonovate Posted May 27, 2004 Author Share Posted May 27, 2004 If though this ruins the credibility of the woman, I don't see how it clears Kobe. Well she would have lied to the cops, hence making her complete testimony invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantra Locust Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 If though this ruins the credibility of the woman, I don't see how it clears Kobe. How many women do you know want to have sex soon after they are "raped"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPaul Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Haven't these kids heard of condoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoyablue Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 (edited) Well she would have lied to the cops, hence making her complete testimony invalid. Actually, whether her lies determine Kobe to be guilty is in the hands of a jury once the trial has started. By the way, the testimony doesn't become completely invalid, you can still use it but you run the risk of being grilled during cross examination. Also, she didn't lie under oath, so any perjury charges are not applicable in this scenario. Edited May 27, 2004 by nspeds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcdShdw Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 cant call it rape now, since she "casually" had sex after i mean come on wtf who is she kidding, she is an attention ###### Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christracy Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Actually, whether her lies determine her to be guilty is in the hands of a jury once the trial has started.By the way, the testimony doesn't become completely invalid, you can still use it but you run the risk of being grilled during cross examination. Also, she didn't lie under oath, so any perjury charges are not applicable in this scenario. its not a risk of perjury its a credibility thing. and SHE isnt on trial Kobe is but i knew ur intentions. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoyablue Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 its not a risk of perjury its a credibility thing. and SHE isnt on trial Kobe is but i knew ur intentions. ;) whoops, yeah, you get what I'm really trying to say:-). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nexus- Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 She was raped and still she had the mood for sex later. What a ****h. agreed :x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redestium Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 More like a ###### hungry slut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christracy Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 More like a ###### hungry slut. roflmao!! :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threetonesun Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Is it going to be allowed in the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxikk Veteran Posted May 28, 2004 Veteran Share Posted May 28, 2004 Is it going to be allowed in the case? doubt it. he needs to be the example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Agreed. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wake6830 Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Kobe's defense has gotten in trouble several times for misbehavior such as "accidentally" mentioning the accuser by name and repeatedly trying to bring up references to the accuser's sexual behaviors pre- and post-rape, neither of which are admissible by law. What she did with her body before and after the supposed rape is completely irrelevant, the issue is really whether or not she said the word "No" a single time during their encounter and, if she did, whether Bryant stopped. If the evidence is allowed it could cause some serious credibility issues, but in my opinion this could be easily spun by the prosecution if they bring up some sort of psychological problem. It seems that most people forget that the prosecution bears the burden of proof, so to even get a trial in the first place they must have had a substantial amount of evidence against Kobe. Issues of credibility are not likely to decide this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth3l Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Is it going to be allowed in the case? It could be used to show that any vaginal tears cannot be attributed to Kobe. Usually, in a rape case, evidence showing the victim had intercourse prior to or immediately after a rape is inadmissible to show her sexual habits, but is admissible to show 1) sperm is not that of rapists and or 2) and physical harm was not caused by alleged rapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth3l Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Kobe's defense has gotten in trouble several times for misbehavior such as "accidentally" mentioning the accuser by name and repeatedly trying to bring up references to the accuser's sexual behaviors pre- and post-rape, neither of which are admissible by law. What she did with her body before and after the supposed rape is completely irrelevant, the issue is really whether or not she said the word "No" a single time during their encounter and, if she did, whether Bryant stopped. If the evidence is allowed it could cause some serious credibility issues, but in my opinion this could be easily spun by the prosecution if they bring up some sort of psychological problem. It seems that most people forget that the prosecution bears the burden of proof, so to even get a trial in the first place they must have had a substantial amount of evidence against Kobe. Issues of credibility are not likely to decide this one. It is completely relevant, see above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giga Veteran Posted May 28, 2004 Veteran Share Posted May 28, 2004 More like a ###### hungry slut. Wholeheartedly agree. :no: (N) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trance Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Add Money-Hungry to that list too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxikk Veteran Posted May 28, 2004 Veteran Share Posted May 28, 2004 haha. shes a counterfeit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts